Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mivius

  1. Woodworking (uncertain if it affects other ts')- making Wooden Boards only uses my basic crafting experimentation & exp points (I am 100% trained in woodworking + disc.) - I have not tried other sub-combines as I don't want to waste more materials or time.
  2. So I feel the need to preface this with a couple of things... I am coming up on 5 years of watching, waiting, reading, testing...as are a good number of you. If you are a "fanboi", or a blind faith follower, you should stop reading now, as this will be upsetting, and your commentary will fall upon as deaf ears as my words here will upon yours. I am going to ask the question first, and list some (and please note, I am specifically being very concise thereafter, this is, not by far, a comprehensive list). I am aware this is "pre -alpha", hiding behind such a tag will not diminish the relevancy. Simply: Why will people come play this game? More importantly? What will keep them here? First, the game is not what we were "promised". While I have read the post(s) trivializing the pve 'grind', I throw my hat in the ring that we were assured there would be NO pve grind. Some > 0, no matter how you cut it, and the changes that brings vary in people's opinion on significance, but it has SOME effect, which is undeniable. The "grind" was to be resources, or pvp . Let's not forget to mention entering a campaign is barred if you're not lvl 20, so it is significant enough to have induced a hard stop/bar mechanic unless you pve level. There were supposed to be NO dropped gear, or coins, it was 100% supposed to in the hands of the players, again, we've been lied to numerous times. (I don't care about business decisions, your word is your word, ACE's has thus far been broken too many times to hold any value.) Necromancy has turned out to be at least as OP as feared, perhaps more-so now that they do not poof when something ends, and do not decay. Most of the mechanics are unimaginitive, I'd go so far as to say "lazy" when it comes to the CC/counter-CC 'mini-game', just rehashing of tired tropes. "Uncle Bob" isn't eliminated through dying worlds, as "Uncle Bob" is just the people who get VIP training from day1. The ONLY interesting/new mechanic is the "dying worlds", otherwise we are just playing a mash-up of rehashed ideas, and the touted 'skill' has been negated by following the same tired patterns we have all seen before. Are dying worlds 'cool' enough to keep people's interest? It's not longer just a pvp game, and sieges offer exactly what that's new, refreshing, and interesting enough not to get tired after a few cycles? Not much. The long and short of it is that I would not have scraped together what I could to support a Kickstarter for the game as presented today as I did 5 years ago. The things that I found most interesting no longer apply, or the easy way out has been taken, and I've gotten rehashed blah instead. And while a good online/other PR campaign might raise curiosity enough for people to log in to check the game out, what is so different here to keep people? I remember at one point they were more concerned with developing those awesome ideas, even if it meant more limited 'commercial success', but I feel they've sold out, and likely to their, our, and the game's peril. Where is the game we were lured in and sold on? Because what Crowfall is shaping up as is not that by a country mile...
  3. Again, while I do throw out 24/7 as the least-restrictive start point, I am not blind to possible negative experiences that may or may not arise. Similarly, there are multiple variations that could also appease many's sense of "reasonable loss"...a stronger innate defense period upon initial attack (30 or 60 minutes to rally the troops, "protected" area takes say 5 or 10% of regular damage in this time)...or a "natural" defense (think thralls with magic and bows) that is "strong enough" to allow an off-hour window to rally (again, I would advocate a maximum of 30-60 minutes, but who knows how that might work out?)...or other solutions. I want whatever is fun & viable for CF, what I don't want is one set of pixels protected by the game because they are somehow viewed as "more valuable" (reason irrelevant tbh).
  4. I'm going to assume this is a prod and goad towards me. Again, I feel this is a reflection on your mindset and how you perceive and interact with the world-at-large. But I'll bite. I want whatever is going to be the most fun for the game, viable for ACE, allows the least amount of restrictions, and allows the most people to participate on thier own schedule. I want the most options available for player choice, risk versus reward, emergent gameplay, skill, and tactics, coupled with logistics and strategy, amongst other qualities. I do not see starting off with more restrictions and safe-time as the logical starting point. Additional mechanics also open sieges up to potential additional bugs and/or exploits. I am fortunate, I have a flexible enough job that when the time comes, I can siege or defend with the guild at any hour of the day or night. Having done MMO "call lists" before, calling me at 2, 3 or 4 AM to get on won't put me out of sorts. 24/7 may not be the answer, but again, I see the most freedom, least restriction, as the way to start (again, in what I perceive as "more competitive bands -GvG/Dregs"), adjusting as needed, if needed. I do not support defender-less take-overs, but at the same time would consider a defender-less stronghold a mistake on the defenders part if there was 24/7 vulnerability, same as it would be to not show up to a pre-arranged banestone defense window. I do not consider head-to-head arranged engagements shining examples of "pvp tactics", but rather a much more narrow subset of tactics that reduces overall pvp 'skill' level. Campaigns may or may not have siegable PoI's as part of the win condition, I see that as a very minor point in comparison to the effect of sieges on other aspects of the game and game play. I see huge issues with siege windows that are basically shrugged off by people who support them. I offered what I see as the least restrictive (in an absolute sense) option, 24/7 vulnerability: this is not the only option though. People make broad claims about bad pvp, Pv(inanimate), worried about losing their pixels while they sleep, etc, etc, with no proof or basis in fact under CF mechanics. I also concede there are no siege window experience under CF mechanics either, but my concerns (I have 5 major ones listed in the other similar thread, which are scattered in this thread too, with more than those) are not detracted from, nor have solutions proposed. I also feel that siege windows are very much against the "spirit" of CF. I also have some solution suggestions, but honestly, have largely pulled back from suggestions because they seem a lot less heeded and weighted than a series of concerns may be. I don't care what the solution is, as long as the concerns are addressed.
  5. Of course starting with the caveat that different CW's should have different rule sets and potentially mechanics (as in siege mechanics), I also believe that what I perceive as "more competitive" CW's (GvG, Dregs) that the mechanics should allow for more risk and vulnerability to reap the rewards of the siegable PoI's. I have made no bones about calling banestone, either through choice or time-cycles, a carebear mechanic, and this is why: 1) Siege windows, chosen or time cycled, are exploitable, To what degree remains to be seen. This is what I consider the top issue. 2) It excludes a good number of people from one of the game's core concepts/points/attraction. Some will/have argued that it limits it, however, this view is based on the "same as me" principle. A significant number of people, at least in the US, and I would assume world-wide, have non-traditional schedules; they work nights, weekends, odd shifts, etc. Whether or not that will translate into the same in CF population is yet to be seen. I know this concern stems from the fact my RL best friend had to work nights and weekends for a decade before he had enough seniority to switch to days: gaming with him was nigh on impossible. 3) It does not fit with Risk versus Reward, nor the theme of impermanence with everything else in CF. There are associated benefits with siegable PoI's, these benefits should not be protected by the game, but rather primarily by the players. Similarly, some people who advocate the relative permanence on Siegable PoI's in the June Q&A thread specifically mention the impermanence of things, and it's thread throughout CF. It befuddles me how you advocate for one, and rally against the same mechanic for one set of pixels (this is 100% related to their personal feelings of 'fairness'/'equality'/'equity' in being able to protect their assets in CW). 4) It supports a "first come first served" mentality. Oh, so my guild is able to log in earlier than your guild and start securing a siegable PoI? Great, now we get the protection of the server and have to do absolutely nothing to protect it, except in the small windows the game provides! So we get there before you, it's a temporary "I win" button, that puts the defenders at an advantage. 5) It forces sieges to tend towards a numbers game rather than a skill game. While there are questions left about who else can participate in these windows (just the attacker and defender, anyone, certain factions, sub-guilds, mercenary units, rando's, etc?), when, "win" conditions, or availability (Can only the guild that places the banestone take over the siegable PoI? Anyone? etc?), this will evolve into who can bring the bigger numbers to the fight. While not eliminating, it detracts greatly from skill and tactics, as this is now more-or-less a head-on, "Hey, we're over here and we're coming, prepare to defend yourself!" fight than any other option. It's option limiting. I have seen again in this thread arguments about it promoting bad pvp (unsupported, and assumes that only sieges are pvp, at least how the arguments are worded), and PvWall or some version (as if thralls won't exist, or a thriving town will somehow be empty and undefended because everyone plays and sleeps on the same schedule...), and it is somehow an instant "I win" button for attackers. But there are a myriad of options to tackle what I see as the top issues with siege windows without detracting from other aspects of gameplay.
  6. I generally see two issues here: 1) PCM doesn't affect all classes 'equally': negating an entire weapon stat for certain classes is extremely powerful (exception apparently being an un-modified 'grey' quality weapon), as well as a seeming disproportionate burden on some classes. 2) The curve on which 'normal' lies is non-intuitive and seems out of line with expectations. +/- 0.0 would seem to be the 'norm' people would expect as a 'baseline', which is not achievable under blue quality under the majority of normal circumstances. While I recognize there are four tiers above "common" (white), they should be increasingly more rare, and at the same time wonderful. Considering the very limiting factor of experimentation pips, higher quality already have the built-in limitation mechanic of having more possibilities than you could ever spend pips, the "steep" curve with PCM seems out of line. I do not seem to be the only person to hold that opinion.
  7. I'm going to make one more attempt to explain. In this I ask a favor, in your internal monologue please read this as a favorite teacher trying to explain a concept to you. Thank you in advance. As I commonly do, I will explain piecemeal. See, communications breakdown. With the (promised) future implementation of actual factories, there would be no way for me, or anyone else, to have discerned this information, I appreciate the clarification. I recognize that you may not recognize when you are being insulting. Every time you tell me i misuse or misunderstand a statement/idea/word, you are being patronizing, which is insulting. You do not know what my experience(s) are any more than I do yours. Every time you twist a statement (going to point to the next section about carebear as an example here), also sometimes called "putting words in my mouth", it is insulting, as I have decent command of the English language, and I try and tend to use the terms and words I actually mean, usually in a very literal way (but not always). To that end: I never call you, nor anyone else, carebear. I do call siege windows carebear. As such, I am going to quote every instance I use carebear in this thread, and please note I have not edited a single post, so it is all verifiable: " It goes against literally every other aspect of the game to care-bear up the siege mechanics. " " Play to Crush, except during seiges, Care Bear Stare! " (not really relevant, but included to be thorough) " Down with the care bear sieges. " " It's their game, they can do whatever they want, but again, seems very backwards to present a 'hardcore style' pvp game, and then care-bear up one of the core game principles/ideas/designs for some false sense of 'fairness'. " " Siege windows are care-bear, especially in CF context. " " My definition of care bear is different than yours, because skill has nothing to do with care bear. " ...and that is it. Please note I also stopped using the term after you deemed it "insulting", despite me not referencing a person. However, if you have a quote of me calling anyone carebear, please do. See the twist there? I never call anyone carebear, I don't call anyone selfish either, it's other people "reading between the lines", when there are no lines to read between. I do say, infer, mention, etc, that a lot of the arguments are from the me/my/I perspective/stance. That's not selfish, it's human nature to put self first in most (but not all) situations, and I understand this too. So you have explicitly stated: "You're the one who keeps calling us carebears and selfish", calling me out directly, with two entirely untrue statements, can you see how that is/could be insulting? Let's start here: "It was ridiculous and made the game unfun" So this is a poignant example of something I have been consistently talking about, the me/my/I/self perspective. For you, and I think I can safely extrapolate for a number of others, it was unfun. Do you think the "winners", the ones that hired the Russian-based guild(s) would say it was "unfun" for them? Can we agree they would say it was fun for them then? So do me a favor (not just you, any and everyone who reads this), put aside your personal feelings for just a moment, okay? If you think about this from an objective standpoint, 'you' were outmaneuvered. Someone had better leadership, negotiation, strategy...something...skill, and innovated a way to win. That bid was, by your account, successful. Remember that Winners Write History. If we look at a well-known example, let's parallel The Trojan Horse...do you think Troy would characterize the Greek tactic as 'fair', or anything else other than underhanded, deceitful, etc? This was a decade-long siege they held out of, to have their mighty defenses negated by a superior tactic, one which history touts as a brilliant strategic move...and why do we not know what the Trojan's thought, or how they would characterize it? They lost, it has become unimportant. Something else I find interesting, again, knowing nothing more than the information you have presented, is that it seemed not only did this tactic win the day, but it demoralized "you". It sounds like people gave up, rather than come up with a counter-tactic, such as (without over-thinking) hiring Oceanic-based guilds, or come up with something completely new. The "winners" worked within the mechanics presented to achieve 'victory'. Any sense of 'fairness' is subjective, not absolute. (Again I would like to reference @coolwaters Thanksgiving day comment). Have you noted that I never use the term "hardcore"? Let's start with: "why the hell should I go through all this trouble?" . As I have made a point of repeatedly, it's a choice. Choices should have substance, they should matter, and the Dev's have repeatedly expressed this as well. If you want the reward/benefit from the PoI, you make the choice to accept the risk. 24/7 vulnerability would (okay, "should" really, user experience may differ) have a cascading effect on capturing and maintaining multiple PoI's, especially as geographical distances between those points grow...ie, you might get stretched too thin. Also note, there are still a myriad of alternative solutions I can think of, and I am not unique. I never said it limits options, I said it creates them, and opportunities, and...you get the point I hope? "In practice" is a misnomer, as we cannot use those mechanics, it's all theory. I recognize my way may be a total failure, but I'd much rather start at the "least restrictive" end of the spectrum and have the "knobs" adjusted if it does create problems, rather start with more restrictive. Siege windows take options away, restricts gameplay, and has other effects, some of which we have listed. I am sorry you feel demeaned. I made considerable effort to illustrate why I felt the ideas were bad, and not in line with what I perceive as the 'spirit' of the game. When the game itself divinely protects your pixel assets I use the reference 'hand holding', or 'carebear', etc, clearly mistakenly thinking I could use a shorter reference than having to go: a mechanic by which the game artificially restricts your ability to participate in one or more aspects of player versus player combat in an open player versus player environment in which no other assets are afforded the same protections, advantages, and benefits, which will decidedly favor one set of players in a false attempt to balance a perception of 'fairness'..... I mean, do you really want to read that, or something more verbose...every...single...time? I disagree with assertion of hurting the player base. I believe I have made enough salient points as to why. 'You' may not agree, but we need not agree. I hope by now you understand it's not about you that I don't part with ideas about how to defend in a 24/7 environment. Look at it from this perspective a moment, please. If you and others cannot fathom/see/etc what these ideas are, or might be, etc, then the sub-set of players who not only have ideas, but can successfully implement them, become a very valuable asset. This is a 'public' forum, I'll not give those ideas away for free (well, not the good ones anyhow) to the masses, sorry (not sorry ). Thank you.
  8. Semantics. Factories are going to have to be set up where? Oh, Keeps, castles, or towns is the plan? The semantics of how you label a castle, keep, town, etc, is relatively unimportant, as it is a "point of interest", whether they are officially labelled as such or not. Why? Because to the players they are going to be Points of Interest. Plus, simply because you are argumentative and insulting continually (I don't care how you dent or try to frame those facts), I am going to quote the FAQ to prove you wrong, again, from https://crowfall.com/en/faq/economy/#4: 4. WHAT IS A POINT OF INTEREST? Our worlds contain many structures that have strategic and/or economic value. We call these structures “points of interest” or POIs. There are other types of POIs, as well: strongholds, temples and graveyards. Each serves a different purpose, but all of them fall under the “POI” designation. Some of these POIs are for personal use while others are more strategic and really exist to facilitate (and, in some cases, fuel) the game of territorial conquest. (I added the bold to 'strongholds' to make it clear). I don't dismiss your arguments because I "don't understand", I dismiss them because they are bad ideas, or are wrong, plain and simple.
  9. Okay, I will attempt to frame it better for you. (As an FYI I have not read the next page of posts, but appreciated your format and thought it deserved a thoughtful response) Let's start off with the base premise: 24/7 vulnerability (caveat, again, not all CW bands necessarily, but say GvG & Dregs at the least) is the least restrictive option. All counter-arguments have stated that this option is 'restrictive' in some manner, discouraging gameplay or pvp. However, 'siege windows' are the restrictive ones, as you are now up against the game-mechanics themselves as a restriction (ie you cannot attack/take over said PoI). Most arguments for the window revolve around some sense of "fairness"/"equal opportunity" waving the rally-flag of "people have lives" (which also infers some people do not), which is borne of the bias from theorycraft or prior experience (or both potentially). However, 24/7 vulnerability, by it's nature, is the least restrictive option possible: we, as players, will only get out of siege mechanics (PoI acquisition, or whatever else you would like to label it) what we, the players, put into it. 24/7 being the least restrictive option available is the only fact we can point to at this time. While I respect @APE desire 'not to have something I built destroyed while I sleep' (not exact quote), that is what we have EK's for, that sense of permanence in what we build. CW's are impermanent, as with everything else, by design. Then look at Risk versus Reward. PoI's are slated to have reward associated with them, be it materials, places to craft, whatever. This is asking for at least one subset of PoI's (perhaps all, because we don't know the full extent of how PoI's will work, be taken over, etc etc) to literally have the Risk associated with the inherit reward to be extremely mitigated. So in some aspect (again, dependent upon how pervasive the mechanic is in relation to all PoI's) you create an sizable imbalance in Risk versus Reward. Siege windows are an artificial restriction, the game sets the 'pace'. 24/7 vulnerability the players control every aspect of the gameplay surrounding it, and it can be a constantly evolving 'thing'. Bonus: If there are no artificial mechanics a) dev's don't have to take time and resources to create those mechanics b ) dev's don't have to fix bugs/issues with those mechanics c) those mechanics cannot be exploited (either via bug or it's own nature) There are also numerous other potential issues with siege windows, as well as a lot of questions, but I've rehashed enough I think to start to answer you. "it's not at all clear to me how you think guilds could defend in a game with 24/7 vulnerability. It seems to me like that inevitably leads to a game where everything is easily destroyed, and building isn't worthwhile." So, I want to start with the second half of the above quote: As noted above, PoI's have a built-in reward system (or, to be clearer, it has been stated they are supposed to), therefore, even if 'destroyed' that will likely be a temporary state, as some organization will look to make use of that reward. As stated in previous posts I am not going to detail any of the various ways that 24/7 defense could/would/should/may/is/etc possible. Here's the kicker, for me at least. In many corners of this (and every MMO I've ever played or read anything about) 'game' is the prolific reference to that ever foggy idea of skill (which, in literal terms is defined as "doing something well"). The interesting thing with 24/7 vulnerability is that it is one of the few aspects of the 'game' that will allow for actual use of some real-world skill(s). To defend something on a 24/7 basis "should" take one, or a combination, of at least some of these real-world skills: leadership, organization, strategy, and/or logistics. This goes beyond the simple "button pushing" that defines the vast majority of what people deem "skill" in any given MMO. As a quick example, anyone can throw together a guild, but we have seen (assumption on my part that people have played at least a handful of other MMO's) countless guilds fall apart for numerous reasons, but leadership, as a skill, is not as common as one would think: some don't have the temperment, the intellect, the attitude, the tact, the charisma, or any other of countless potential qualities. A siege window takes far less 'skill'. If the window is chosen or time based can reduce the skill required further. Siege windows also make it tend towards a numbers game over player skill (the in-game kind). To put the answer more succinctly to this part: You will adapt and overcome using actual skills and organization. Not everyone or every guild will hold PoI's (well, I mean, I guess they could if there were enough of them, but big, strong guilds tend not to like to share their 'toys'). " Assume the defending guild has plentiful numbers and they're well organized, and assume they have to protect their city against a guild with equal numbers. The attackers tell their guild "Set your alarms, be ready for the siege at [redacted] AM on [redacted] morning." How can a defender guard against that? " If you have the manpower to take and hold a PoI, would it not make sense to have a plan to hold/defend that PoI, in some way other than the game holding your hand and making it invulnerable for you? While I am hesitant to put this out there, I notice a general assumption people keep making...that the only way for a guild to hold a PoI is to have just that guild hold that PoI...that's patently silly...there's a free hint for the day. However, this again comes down to the same real-world skill set(s) I mentioned above. "How DO you defend a PoI 24/7?"....us, the player base, devising, refining, changing, innovating, etc, those answers, for ourselves, is interesting, dynamics, and conducive to emergent game play. (Opinion, clearly, as some people want their hand held to protect their precious, ultimately impermanent anyhow pixels). " Even if the defender has a guy on watch, when the attackers show up at say.. 3am on Tuesday, I don't see a way for the defender to muster near equal numbers. Not when most of their members are naturally asleep and not expecting an attack, while the attackers can plan for this in advance and set their alarms. " It seems to me that many people think that just showing up at some off-hour is like an "I win" button for the attackers, this is not true. As previously discussed, at least some siegable PoI's are supposed to have walls, and thrall-guards. That's not to mention that an active guild, in control of valuable PoI's would be foolish to just all play on the same schedule (it's also almost impossible from a human standpoint). If you have the appropriate skill-set(s) you will have a plan, and a back-up plan, and probably at least one more back-up plan. It also gets so much more interesting if you are talking about holding multiple PoI's. With siege windows multiple PoI's are infinitely more defensible, and defenses can be more or less standardized. Everything I hear in response is based on the fear that somehow "I" won't be able to participate in sieges, or "I" will lose my PoI while me/my guild sleeps/works/etc, it's not fair to "me"/my guild. I have taken into consideration the game as a whole, the fact that not everyone will be holding onto PoI's (again, my assumption based on the limited information available), advantages and disadvantages to each style (as far as can be with what information we currently have), and the restrictions, potential for bugs, and potential for exploitation: it's not about "me", it's about a healthy, vibrant, interesting, brutal Crowfall. Also, this is an ongoing war. All is fair in Love and War...
  10. Of course you should provide 24/7 protection if you have 24/7 vulnerability (not required, but should)., but, that is not what I was talking about, and succinctly illustrates why you have blinders on and/or have a myopic view, let's revisit: ^^^ THIS IS NOT THE ONLY OPTION FOR COVERAGE. I mean, it's big and bold, can I be clearer? Because NO I will not give you free ideas. NO. YOU would attack when there were fewer Defenders, so you project your belief to everyone. In competitive game scenarios there will always be a faction/sub-set of players who will look to make use of every possible advantage, to include the one you listed, but that will be the case regardless of mechanic: I have already pointed some of them out associated with siege windows. I attempt to, and I make a concerted effort to point out my opinions, but sometimes i miss them on first pass, and I rarely edit, so I'm human, sometimes I don't get it. I have made every effort to 'head nod' /acknowledge when I see the point of an idea, or agree with part of it, or recognize it as a possibility, again, being human, not perfect, fail sometimes. I see little to none of that from some of you in return, simply persistent denial/negativity in return, and often nothing in the way of example or explanation, outside of "people have lives". You are trying to put words in my mouth here, might I suggest a reading comprehension course...
  11. *Sigh* it's like having a conversation with a brick wall... Wrong. The walls and thralls would speed bumps to allow you the time to rally defensive forces. You can't rally those forces? You failed at the skill of defending your PoI. You also are (which I thought too obvious to mention previously, but let me be explicit:) making the choice to attack with lower defenses if this is the case. You do not have to attack at that time... you can wait until they are assembled and ready. You can make "Gentleman's agrements" and negotiate larger battles, there are, again, literally innumerable options if you leave it in the player's hands, you take that away if you place artificial restrictions. However, again, this is about choice, and your (not just you, I am not trying to pick specifically) projection about how this will develop (ie being attacked when you are more/most vulnerable) actually says a lot about your views, perceptions, and interactions with the game world and community at large. Those ideas are not absolutes, but each are constructs of what each and every one of us put into them ourselves. Broken record, but let me re-frame: Are you forced by the game to do this? And by forced I mean you have no choice? Wait, it is, again, a choice. You are again projecting in this statement. The guild is not forced to do anything. If they want to keep the PoI, they make the choice to defend it, or not, and whom, and when. And while this conversation has revolved mostly around singular PoI, what about spreading it through 3, 5, or 10 PoI/Castle/town/trees? So now i can hold more land/area, risk free, because if I get to choose when to defend, I will never schedule 2 or more sieges at the same time. in 24/7, you have no such safety net, and if you have 5 castles, and a smart strategist organized forces to attack all 5 at once, well, now you have to make hard choices (or maybe not so hard? guess it would depend on PoI's value). You (and again, not just you) are advocating more restrictive gameplay for the sake of the safety of one particular set of pixels. Again, not the only option, but the only one you are willing to recognize, or at least voice. Bias? Because I use the literal definition of 'siege'? The siege is solel an offensive effort, as those defending are 'under siege' or 'being laid siege to" or "besieged", etc etc etc. The siege is the act of doing the sieging, not defending against it. I know, silly me, using the words as they are defined and meant to be used. Good try though. They also have walls and thralls (I mean, maybe they don't, but that would just be silly...) to help make the force rally. You want an agreed upon siege/defend scenario, you can do that in 24/7, by player agreement, why do you need an artificial mechanic? And the chance is in having a plan/strategy for defense...risk versus reward. This is again your opinion as well, and not fact. Please, explain why it's a bad design choice: again I see it as fostering more dynamics, more possibilities, more emergent game play, and a slew of other benefits I have both posted and not posted in this thread alone. I'm going to be blunt, and somewhat insulting here, so my apologies. I have stated and re-stated I have intentionally withheld many possible solution sets. This stems from this base idea: If you are not smart enough, logistically or strategically oriented enough, as either a leader and/or organization, to devise, implement, and refine your own defenses, you do not deserve to be able to hold your PoI/Castle/Tree/etc. Think and organize for yourself, do not have your hand held by the game because you are too short-sighted to come up with solution(s). 24/7 allows that, windows are restrictive. Going back to 100 man guild versus a 12 man guild; in 24/7 everyone can participate 100% of the time if they make that choice. In 24/7 a superior 12 man guild/force could potentially take-over a PoI from a 100 man behemoth through various methods. In the window scenario you are artificially limiting it to a numbers game. IE the 12 man guild could never (okay, maybe it's just really really really unlikely instead, but) directly take-on the 100 man behemoth in a window-drive siege. It innately severely limits the options of smaller groups, and makes sieges much more about a numbers game than anything else. And again, this is your opinion. Some people could care a crow's less about sieging. And technically, all players can still compete against each other, but what form that takes may vary. Oh, then explain it to me, because all I see are a bunch of opinions trying to justify why the more restrictive option is better. The problem is here I can actually think about things in objective, logical ways, and I'm not easily swayed by false assertions and strong-arm tactics. Unlike several of you, I absolutely give consideration to each idea you post, and give them both merits and flaws, and I have yet to see anything that is more than an opinion based on a notion of 'fairness'/'equal opportunity'/etc (again, the exception being APE, but his logical argument was previously acknowledged). Here we just disagree. If it's undefended, the 'owners'/'controllers' of the PoI made a mistake: which, in my opinion, means they deserve to lose that PoI. I do have an issue with the game itself holding an organizations proverbial hand to make things easier..why? because they logged in faster? Took a day off from work and someone else couldn't/didn't? Or any other combination that could lead to them just claiming whatever they come across first and being able to hold it, not through their skill, organization, planning, coordination, etc, but simply because the game says so. Specifically, since you (again, not you only) rally this idea around the banner of 'people who have lives', this mechanic seems very anti-"people who have lives", because they may not be able to be the first person on the claim PoI's, and then are at the mercy of the 'windows'.
  12. First, I reiterate that I agree different CW should have different rules/mechanics. I can see siege windows working in the 'softer' bands, faction, God's Reach, but sounds terribly out of place for Dregs, or even GvG world. And I agree there are many ways to approach something. Here are some issues though: First off, I do not leave out anyone, I use the blanket term 'players', which includes everyone who "plays the game". Attackers, defenders, abstainers, your crafting bot's alt bot harverster...everyone. Secondly, from a strictly technical standpoint, you do not have to have defenders for a siege; the point of a siege is to take-over (or destroy in some cases) whatever you are going after. So this is your projection of your opinion on the masses, not a fact. The fallacy here is that somehow this makes things balanced/fair/even for anyone, when in fact if you choose when you challenge, and can choose when to defend, both of those are exploitable (see Coolwater's Chinese Thanksgiving Day reference, or any of the other examples floated about middle of the night or during the work/school day). Similarly, I have a little more hope/faith it will be more like item #6 in the Strategy FAQ (https://crowfall.com/en/faq/strategy/) Although that still is an artificially enforced mechanic, I would support that for Faction/God's Reach over players choosing, simply for the exploitability factor. The assertion about the likelihood of having both sides being ready/available/participate/etc greatly diminished is again an opinion based guess at best, it may or may not be true, and we cannot scry into the future to tell. However: Both of you consistently make this claim that 24/7 is somehow limiting, and hurts the player base, but offer no rational explanation as to why, or how you feel this will come about, and proffer them as fact, when this is not. But because @Dondagora did express his reasons, let's examine them: "It makes it so that groups can take castles without ever fighting defenders, or at least their full force, because of the restrictions natural to all humans" -- The belief that an organization would build up a town/tree/whatever, and leave it undefended if it was vulnerable 24/7 would be a tactical mistake, deserving of losing the PoI. In a window scenario, you can leave it undefended, because now the game itself is artificially protecting your precious pixels. Similarly, the likelihood of any sizable organization having their "full force" on for siege windows (player selected or time cycled) is also highly unlikely. While I concede in the realm of possibilities, both could occur, it would be highly unlikely organizations who were willing to take the risk to build in a 24/7 environment would be foolhardy enough to just leave it for people to tear down. Once again reiterating that this endeavor is greater than 'self', and like all things outside of 'basic' in CF, will require a community of one sort or another to make happen (barring issues that would allow exploit/bad mechanics/etc to have it built up by one person, etc etc) "And, even should 24/7 coverage be done, it prevents players from doing what they come to MMO's to do: join up with friends and go doing things"-- This is just patently false. It forces you to make a choice, and that choice matters. The game will not force you to go harvest, to go craft, to build up your castle/PoI, or defend the materials PoI, or any other aspect. You could still join up with friends and do anything the game does not restrict you from doing, the choice still lies with you. Dev's have consistently said that your choices should matter and have consequences. And while I cannot detract from siege windows also forcing a different set of choices, 24/7 allows the greatest amount of freedom, whereas windows are limitations, and again, artificial and exploitable limitations (both selection and time based). "While it forces coordination, it works against the MMO genre and does not encourage the large battles people join Crowfall for." -- This is again conjecture. How does it work against the MMO genre? Because so many are theme-parks? Because of the general state of permanence that permeates most of them? We are given EK's for exactly that sense of permanence. Depending on how siege rulesets are handled, siege windows can be infinitely more restrictive...exactly who can participate? Are there number caps? In total? Per side? Can anyone come along when the vulnerability is open? Can you be betrayed by your own allies, faction, guildmates? The list goes on and on and on and on...The 24/7 vulnerability has none of those questions, or issues, it's a blank slate, a clump of clay, something waiting for the players to mold it to their will and want; with windows you are at the mercy of the game itself, and possibly the opponent (in a 'selection' system). I can easily argue that 24/7 fosters more player interaction and can lead to larger battles and more interesting dynamics, whereas windows may get 'stale' after a time (clearly just my opinion/theorycraft), it doesn't make one opinion more right than another, but we will get stuck with what they give us. "Because of these three major issues [PvWall, anti-grouping, absurd/anti-life standard for organization], I conclude that 24/7 vulnerability would be unhealthy for the game." -- No PvWall, or if so, it's a mistake on the builder/defenders part: IE they lack the "skill" to defend their PoI. Not anti-grouping, again this is simply a choice, you view it in a certain light, but it is not fact. And there is nothing 'absurd/anti-life standard' as well, there are innumerable ways to tackle this "issue"/"problem", but let the players decide the solutions, or courses of action, not the game. None of these are facts. But not one person has answered my "base" question: Why are/should these pixels be so special? 1) EVERYTHING, to include the world itself is impermanent...your gear, your body, everything; Why should these pixels be different? 2) EVERYTHING outside of 'basic' crafting requires a 'community' effort: As a Wood Worker I have to interact with a minimum of seven (7) different specialists to make a single book, and that is quite likely actually half of the number: (7 = 1 blacksmith, 1 ore specialist, 1 stone specialist, 1 wood specialist, 1 leather specialist, 1 rune maker, 1 leather worker) Because you are unlikely to use just one type of ore, and may also want variance in stone or leather, and I didn't include optional components at all...AND constructions get their very own special materials PoI's to speed up these processes...so why do we need an additional (artificial) protective mechanic for these pixels only? 3) NOTHING else in the game is afforded this 'special protection': why the discontinuity here? Almost all attempts to justify this are either easily refuted, or unknowable opinion. The exception being @APE presented a valid logical argument, and I can accept and appreciate that. But that still doesn't answer my question: Why are/should these pixels be so special? Ultimately I have to accept whatever the Dev's implement, or move on. I understand I likely cannot sway anyone, but I absolutely could be, but how my mind works, I need a logical, rational, perhaps even "common sense" style answer to my base question. I also want to disclaim that I do understand where you are coming from, I honestly do, I just disagree with it for a good swathe of CF, as I feel for many CW bands that a window mechanic is wholly out of place. And again, my disclaimer: I apologize if I was insulting or perceived as such!
  13. Nor did I. But I have played a number of style of pvp games. However, again disclaiming apology before I do this, I have quote all of your responses to me in this thread (I think? I might have left out ones not related to the point here, but I think those were directed at others), and will illustrate how zero logical arguments are presented, shall we? Next: Next: Next: And the home stretch: So I realized sometime when I was writing this that it would likely be useful to define what a logical argument is, I'm going to steal from a quick Google search: A logical argument (or just argument) is a process of creating a new statement from one or more existing statements. An argument proceeds from a set of premises to a conclusion, by means of logical implication, via a procedure called logical inference. (this is only part of it: find it all here-> https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Definition:Logical_Argument ) (The dictionary definition you can look up, but it's usually much more vague) For my purposes I will simplify: I take a look at the systems we have, the systems we are 'promised', the information about the style and gameplay, and see that we are in an open, harsh, relatively unrestricted pvp environment, and then I look at a singular mechanic, in this case, sieges, and note the variance from literally everything else. To counter this, you would need to point out specific instance(s) where the existing mechanics support this as an A+B=C (over-simplification) equation, and that has not been done. Again, I harbor serious doubts that it can be done. My logical argument says given the systems we have now, 24/7 destroy everything is the logical conclusion to that idea, to include sieges. Yes, i could get into specifics, but I am already heavily verbose, and most don't care. Nothing presented has been a logical argument to refute or correct anything I conclude, as briefly illustrated above.
  14. How so? My vision is equitable, not based on previous SB bias, founded in logic, and is consistent with the rest of the 'supposed' core idea of the game, Siege windows are the aberration here. I asked for a simple, logical reason why they should be present, over biased, or opinion based arguments, and I see no logic based reasoning. Starting here: awesome! I love the free exchange of ideas, I just understand how my 'arguments' are often perceived!
  15. It would be doubly awesome if it showed your group as 'ticks' too!
  16. I addressed different rules for different CW's..twice...in my first post in this thread. And nothing has been countered or refuted, except by me. Again, I have nothing against you, I have everything against the idea of siege windows. There is not a single valid point for, in my opinion, the use of siege windows. Everything presented is based on SB, or some sense of fairness/equality that does not exist in any other aspect of CF (as it stands now, subject to change, batteries not included, not meant for children under 6, be kind please rewind...). I also feel it is hypocritical for some people to be against some of the 'features', that when extended to towns/buildings/trees/sieges are suddenly "okay".
  17. Let me apologize first, because I am not 'against' anyone here, I am 'against' an idea. I know i have strong opinions, I want to make it clear I am not trying to 'pick' on anyone, and I apologize if it seems that way, as I am about to dissect this:
  18. How so? You need to gather materials, just like every other craft...check, plus you get special PoI's to help gather more materials here. You have to craft them, just like every other craft...check. The point about time, effort, and teamwork are theorycraft. Right now Wood Worker has an undue burden of interdependencies and variety of materials, necromancy takes considerable time and rare(r) materials. All of that aside, this actually boils down to a two-word question.... So what? Nothing there warrants special rules (imo). Group effort, not about the individual. Assumption. And if they are producing a special siege mechanic a, or some, dev's have a nostalgic attachment to, then this is false. I only have a preference based on the materials presented to us, the ideas presented to us, and the general workings of the mechanics as we see them. It makes zero sense to have people against mechanics like 'safe zones', safe login, ganking, inequity in combat ability between all UT types, etc., and be for negative experiences, all the while advocating the complete antithesis of the idea/concept of the game because of notions of 'fairness' when, again, there is literally not a single other 'fairness' mechanic in the game. I think it is an exceptionally poor design decision that counters everything they have ever presented as the core idea for the game, and seemingly because it is touted as the 'spiritual successor' of another game (mental bias). I am also for temples being safe zones, having a safe login mechanic, etc (I have a post in that recent thread). But I also can take what we are given and question why a single mechanic deserves special treatment? I also have a sneaking suspicion that there is not an actual, logical reason for it, other than the 'spiritual successor' factor: everything else has just been excuses. It's their game, they can do whatever they want, but again, seems very backwards to present a 'hardcore style' pvp game, and then care-bear up one of the core game principles/ideas/designs for some false sense of 'fairness'.
  19. It goes against literally every other aspect of the game to care-bear up the siege mechanics. Right now you can kill me as I log in before I can react; and the community as a near-unanimous whole agrees this is "okay" and "acceptable". So it's okay to lose your gear and potentially vessel without being able to defend yourself, but these particular (buildings, tree, etc) deserve special rules? Why? Why is it okay, besides the inbred sense of this somehow being SB's spiritual successor, to make this single mechanic different? Why are these pixels so much more valuable than literally every other pixel in game? If this question can be answered logically (to my standard/satisfaction), I'll let it go, and I am not psychologically attached to the nostalgia, time invested I have already countered, and I don't accept that just because it was in another game it should be here, 'spiritual successor' or not. If this holds true, I feel they should change the slogan from "Play to Crush" to something akin to: Play to Crush, except during seiges, where we hold your hand. or Play to Crush, except during seiges, Care Bear Stare! or Play to Crush, except, you know, that one part... or Play to Crush (*as long as you don't participate in sieges) or you get the idea... Crushing your opponents is merciless, you take every advantage. Down with the care bear sieges.
  20. You realize sieging literally could not happen without players online? I know, I know, semantics, you meant specifically "defenders"..again, can't defend it 24/7? Don't build it. What I also forgot to mention in the other post was: Why is it that this singular mechanic should be exempt from the negative experience/grief mentality that permeates literally every single other aspect of this game? If they do go with siege windows: Bad Show ACE, bad show.
  21. This thread amuses me. I used the quote above because it's the closest I have seen to a reality check. As a disclaimer, I could see variations based on the band, however: There's another thread about people's widely varying opinions on "safe zones", as Srathor points out a good number of people do nothing but spew about risk versus reward for gatherers (shortest end of the stick), and crafters and the (potential) loss of time and resources, and about the transient nature of everything in CF, except EK's... And this is where a lot of you are choosing to get overly attached to your pixels? You are advocating for artificial "safe zones" for these same pixels (buildings, town, tree, etc), whereas you want nothing to do with a safe way to spawn into the world, but your town is so g/d precious? Why is your building/town/tree so special that it should get special treatment? It doesn't take "real man hours" to gather materials, be it for building, gear, discplines, or vessels? Does it matter if from a PoI or node? Not really, it's all an investment of the most precious of all resources, time. It doesn't take "real man hours" to craft buildings, gear, weapons, discplines, vessels? Oh, it does, so again, why are your buildings/town/tree so special? I do not care if it takes months to build, it takes months to get to certain craft points (skills), and gather points (skills), why is it okay to lose some pixels, but not others? If you can't afford to place thralls (guards), or devise ways to protect your building/town/tree/materials 24/7, then don't build it? As with everything else, you have the choice as to whether or not participate in that aspect of the game. It's amazing to me how one could advocate for no restrictions in many areas, and yet here, you value certain pixels so highly you think they deserve special treatment you rally against in other threads for other aspects of the game? Hypocrisy is never a good look. Barring various rules on various bands, everything should be attackable and destructible 24/7, you can't defend it 24/7? Welcome to Crowfall.
  22. To me this answers my question that a blue binding modded to -0.25 and white pages modded to -0.115 on final combine are, in fact, supposed to combine to +0.5 WE, modding down to +0.376 on a green final combine/experiment. This makes me /sadpandaface for several reasons, but let's hope it's a future balance issue. Yes, confessors do not have to worry about mana if their passive is equipped, but please understand, that also means we effectively have 2 passive slots to other classes 3. There is a 3 passive build I want to try, but cannot due to the WE "issue" and required to keep our original class passive slotted. Also please be aware that for some abilities confessor now needs a new resource, zealotry as well, which is another new (hidden? I didn't really notice on my limited engagements this weekend, and forgot to video) resource we have to track/worry about.
  • Create New...